20 Feb
2012
20 Feb
'12
7:07 a.m.
> ...then surely you meant "machine code"
rather than "assembler"?
Yep, I did. It's a good distinction. What
tripped me up is that the
common vernacular is to call is 370 assembler code, not 370 machine
code. I'm not sure why, but that's the term they use.
I'm not sure why either, but similar things apply in other fields; for
example, in my own work I might well say something like "at this point,
it's executing C code" even though, of course, a more precise phrasing
would be more like "...executing machine code generated by compiling C
code". I wonder whether this is just verbal shorthand, or mental
blurring of the lines between the various levels, or what....
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B